Don't get a swolled-up head over this, but I agree with you. There, I said it....UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
EDIT: I've just replayed it 30 times. There is one new frame with the tip of a nose. It answers absolutely none of the outstanding questions, at first glance.
I just got screenshots. I'll post them in a sec...still not convincing enough to be a plane. The frames of something hitting the pentagon have been chopped up, and they aren't refreshing at the same pace as the rest of the released video. It's just another angle with no more information than the first frames released.
Damn it, twice in one day I agreed with someone I really didn't want to.Marconius wrote:
I just got screenshots. I'll post them in a sec...still not convincing enough to be a plane. The frames of something hitting the pentagon have been chopped up, and they aren't refreshing at the same pace as the rest of the released video. It's just another angle with no more information than the first frames released.
I wish I was controversial enough for people to be upset when they agree with me.
The only head-swelling I'm likely to get over this is from banging my head on the table in frustration at the lack of a clear image.Erkut.hv wrote:
Don't get a swolled-up head over this, but I agree with you. There, I said it....UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
EDIT: I've just replayed it 30 times. There is one new frame with the tip of a nose. It answers absolutely none of the outstanding questions, at first glance.
My submission:
Bushkabnut F0r 73h l053
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm worked fine i FF
Keep in mind it is only at 2 frames a sec
Keep in mind it is only at 2 frames a sec
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mike_J thanks for the link. Much easier to watch those videos. Still, you only get to see the plane in one frame per video, and not well enough to be able to difinitively say it is a plane.
Mason4Assassin444;
My comment "Why do we need to see this again?" was **not** directed at you. If that's the way it came off and it offended you, I deeply apologize. I don't know who I intended the comment for, and should not have posted.
Again, my apologies to you.
My comment "Why do we need to see this again?" was **not** directed at you. If that's the way it came off and it offended you, I deeply apologize. I don't know who I intended the comment for, and should not have posted.
Again, my apologies to you.
Marconius, are you sure that it's a new frame in the bottom left of your submission? It looks like more like the original with a few filters to me:
The pictures are way too blurred to be able to tell anything. There is nothing substantial in them at all that proves there was a plane.
But is it substantial to prove there wasn't? That is the key.....ghettoperson wrote:
The pictures are way too blurred to be able to tell anything. There is nothing substantial in them at all that proves there was a plane.
Eh, the was the screenshot I pulled from the realplayer stream. I didn't touch the screenshots at all in photoshop.
Misunderstanding alert! I mean do you think that the shot showing the fuselage was missing from the leaked frames, or does it look like one of those original 5 frames with some image treatment applied? The 'New Image?' was my attempt to determine if it was a 'missing' frame or simply the same footage as before.Marconius wrote:
Eh, the was the screenshot I pulled from the realplayer stream. I didn't touch the screenshots at all in photoshop.
In hindsight, to me the old image looks like it has been enhanced or sharpened for clarity, so perhaps my reasoning was back to front, and this is the original but the leaked one was the one which was treated...
EDIT: BTW, I can see how my posting an image with almost the exact same layout of almost the exact same blurry photos and talking about image filters might lead to confusion... apologies.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-05-16 14:37:49)
OK, the footage with the Cones in it is the old footage...but the old footage with new frames. You see different frames in the Loose Change footage. I only used the footage that was playing in the BBC video. They were playing the rest of the "5 frames" footage clip, along with the new clip from the more panoramic camera.
Mike_J posted this: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html which has better quality footage, yet is still quite lacking in any visual information.
Mike_J posted this: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html which has better quality footage, yet is still quite lacking in any visual information.
What a crock of shit. There's nothing you can identify as a plane, if they really were going to release footage of it, why not use the THOUSAND OTHER CAMERAS THAT MUST HAVE SEEN IT?
hey rejects! read my post with the link to the Popular Mechanics "Mythbusting" of all this garbage. Read Page 6 of the article. Here's a quote:
"Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
call the guy up and ask him what he found there. i DARE anyone to refute what I have just put forward.
"Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
call the guy up and ask him what he found there. i DARE anyone to refute what I have just put forward.
@batman_psu You can put forth your view without the insults.
Good info with the engineer. I want to know why we had to wait so long for this release of a whole extra frame of video.
And how come all of those people from the crash site, not just this engineer, but all of the people swarming around the Pentegon and that Penn. field haven't came forward like Mr. Kilsheimer. I figure if it was me who was helping with the cleanup and investigation I would want to debunk any bullshit out there and nip it in the bud right way.
Here's a good article on Allyn Kilsheimer.
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2002/10 … -hero.html
Good info with the engineer. I want to know why we had to wait so long for this release of a whole extra frame of video.
And how come all of those people from the crash site, not just this engineer, but all of the people swarming around the Pentegon and that Penn. field haven't came forward like Mr. Kilsheimer. I figure if it was me who was helping with the cleanup and investigation I would want to debunk any bullshit out there and nip it in the bud right way.
Here's a good article on Allyn Kilsheimer.
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2002/10 … -hero.html
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2006-05-16 17:03:03)
It was all a big set-up. That thing that hit the Pentagon---> i see it every day in BF2. UAV
This one must have been a Global Hawk. Notice the white smoke coming out of it. If a boeing is flying that low, no way there could have been white smoke coming out of its engines. Only at high altitudes. Nobody heard a plane. It was suddenly BOOOM. If a boeing was flying that low over all those people, they would have had ear damage.
I dont know what the us government is doing with you guys out there, but it sure aint clean.
My 2 cents
This one must have been a Global Hawk. Notice the white smoke coming out of it. If a boeing is flying that low, no way there could have been white smoke coming out of its engines. Only at high altitudes. Nobody heard a plane. It was suddenly BOOOM. If a boeing was flying that low over all those people, they would have had ear damage.
I dont know what the us government is doing with you guys out there, but it sure aint clean.
My 2 cents
sorry for the rejects comment. out of place. you know how everyone acts when there's a lot of people around. "i'm sure someone else will do it." "better leave that up to someone else more qualified than me." this is how people think in large crowds. Also, Popular Mechanics probably didn't ask EVERYONE who was there that day. Those probably feel that since it was completely obvious what happened, that they didn't need to speak out. I'm sure if any one of us were able to get in contact with anyone who was at the pentagon or in PA that day, they would tell us exactly what they saw.
so far what i've heard about the delay in releasing the extra frames of the video is that they held onto them due to the fact that the Moussaoui trial was going on and they did not want to affect the jurors and that the tapes were part of the ongoing investigation. to me that seems reasonable. but i can understand why others don't see it as something that needs to be hidden.
my question is, why is everyone SO EAGER to blame this on the US government? i don't understand it.
so far what i've heard about the delay in releasing the extra frames of the video is that they held onto them due to the fact that the Moussaoui trial was going on and they did not want to affect the jurors and that the tapes were part of the ongoing investigation. to me that seems reasonable. but i can understand why others don't see it as something that needs to be hidden.
my question is, why is everyone SO EAGER to blame this on the US government? i don't understand it.
Last edited by batman_psu (2006-05-16 17:14:29)
The Popular Science page information is refutable due to the author. His cousin just happens to be the Secretary to the Department of Homeland Security.
From the 9/11 all staged thread.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
The Popular Mechanics article is interesting at best. Perhaps you could debunk these debunkings of the Popular Mechanics debunkings:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ … hanics.htm
To be honest, I'm not suprised that the author of the Popular Mechanics article is biased towards the official story, as his cousin is Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma … cousin.htm
were you there? did you ask anyone if they heard a plane? how do you KNOW that NO ONE heard a plane? that statement that you put forth as fact is just random hearsay. no basis for it at all. you're just playing a game of telephone and the real truth was lost way back after the first call.HisInfernalDeath wrote:
It was all a big set-up. That thing that hit the Pentagon---> i see it every day in BF2. UAV
This one must have been a Global Hawk. Notice the white smoke coming out of it. If a boeing is flying that low, no way there could have been white smoke coming out of its engines. Only at high altitudes. Nobody heard a plane. It was suddenly BOOOM. If a boeing was flying that low over all those people, they would have had ear damage.
I dont know what the us government is doing with you guys out there, but it sure aint clean.
My 2 cents
do you think a SURVEILLANCE drone has enough speed or fuel capacity or weight to do the damage that it did? i'm asking you a question. dazzle me with your ability to do research and prove your point beyond mere speculation.
what white smoke are you talking about? b/c the frames that i saw were of the nose of the thing and then a big explosion.
read this article InfernalDeath and read page 6 carefully: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … =1&c=y
Then come back and try to argue that it was a UAV.
YOU CANT REFUTE SCIENTIFIC FACT AND EVIDENCE WITH BLOOD TIES. that makes no sense. Its NOT an OPINION article!!!!! there is no bias in it. its fact and testimony and science. just because there is a relationship there doesn't change the fact that Mr. Kilsheimer held the BLACK BOX in his hand and saw body parts and flight attendant uniforms. Oh wait, I suppose it was his cousin who was the flight attendant so it COULDN'T be a Boeing passenger jet.